|
题目：The following appeared in a health newsletter. "A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus, to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets." Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted. 提纲： 1：事故数量上升不一定代表问题比以前严重，人口增加，bicylists数量增长都有可能导致发生车祸的人增多，而事故率反而是降低的。 2：如果事故率确实是上升了，也许不是带了头盔才引起事故严重的，可能有其它原因。 3：如果是头盔导致了事故增加，government 的policy 可能并不能改善已经存在多年的问题。
While there is apossibility that the helmet present a sense of security which eventually leadsto the negligence causing increasing danger in accidents among bicyclists, thisargument is not convincing because of the assumptions it based on. It isunderstandable that traffic safety for the city is significant, which deservespolicies to guarantee a halcyon place for the residents, but the arguer failsto convince us by making the assumptions unwarranted. By quoting thesurvey data of bicyclists, the author claims that the number of accidents bybicycling increased 200 percent is a great increase. There are, however, otherpossibilities regarding the precise number of these accidents as well asbicyclists which work against with this assumption. For example, if accidentscaused by bicycling are so rare ten years ago, the number of accidents maystill be at the low level. Even though there is a great amount of bicycleaccidents nowadays, a much larger number of bicyclists will compensate for thepercentage of accident ratio. Considering the proliferating bicycle loversnowadays, the lower accident ratio is highly possible. Without illustrate theseassumptions thoroughly, we can never be convinced that the accident is muchmore severe than the past.
Additionally, evenif 200 percent increase of accident caused by bicycling is great enough, theauthor brings about another assumption to support his argument. The assumptionbeing no other reason could possibly accounts for the increasing danger, theargument makes an assertion that the increasing threaten is greatly caused bythe usage of helmet. While wearing a helmet may make people have such illusionthat they are safe enough, it is highly possible that the quality of helmetstoday are much worse than those ten years ago, thus leading to a host ofaccidents. Likewise, maybe the design of bicycle’s speed is much higher thanthat ten years ago, thus naturally increase the risks of accidents. Tostrengthen the argument, the author should make a thorough investment overregulations and changes concerning traffic policy and laws these years. Asurvey containing the reason causing accidents can also add great commencementto the argument. Building upon the assumptionthat bicyclists would become more aware of safety without helmets, the arguer suggeststhat safety awareness is highly important in education, thus providing an educationregarding safety and a discouragement of using the helmet can offer great help.We may wonder if this kind of education or discouragement is efficient. It islikely that people do not pay attention to such program or policy, thusgovernment may waste much money on this useless deed. Moreover, if the usage ofhelmet has built up a sense of secure inside the bicyclists, abandoning theusage might not call upon the awareness immediately because of years’ habits.Failing to offer cohesive information about the efficiency of this kind ofeducation program, the policy cannot be carried out.
A safe andpeaceful environment is the one that government and residents desire to pursue contemporarily.Government should never stop putting up policies to make traffic safer. However,the recommendation invalid and misleading based on many unwarranted assumptions.The government cannot expect an improved situation about the accidents withouta careful analysis of all the respects I have presented.
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-8-23 14:01:17
收藏
收藏
